College Tools Referral Code

This is one of the highest commission rates in this category. That is not generosity, and understanding why is the whole point of this page.

College Tools' referral programme pays 50% of all revenue from referrals, on a service marketed as AI-powered homework assistance.

Fifty per cent of all revenue is an exceptionally high commission rate, and the first thing to say is that a rate like that is information rather than generosity. A business gives away half its revenue when ordinary customer acquisition is difficult or closed to it. Mainstream advertising platforms restrict or prohibit promotion of services that facilitate academic misconduct, and universities block them. When the usual channels are unavailable, word-of-mouth becomes the channel — and half the revenue is what that costs.

So the question that matters is not what the commission pays. It is what would be promoted, and to whom.

Three things worth knowing before the money:
1. Academic misconduct is decided by the institution, not by the tool. Universities and colleges set their own rules on permitted assistance, and those rules increasingly address generative AI explicitly. A service may be entirely legal to operate and still put its user in breach of their course regulations — those are different questions, and only the second one gets a student excluded. The consequences run from a mark of zero to expulsion, and on a professional programme they can reach the accrediting body.
2. The distinction that matters is between learning support and substitution. A tool that explains a concept, checks reasoning, or generates practice questions supports learning and is usually permitted. A tool that produces work to be submitted is a different thing, whatever it is called — and "homework assistance" does not specify which, so this page will not assume either way. Ask, and ask the institution too.
3. In some jurisdictions, providing or advertising academic-cheating services is a criminal offence. England legislated against contract-cheating services and, importantly, against advertising them. Other jurisdictions have comparable provisions, and similar contract-cheating services have faced enforcement action elsewhere. Whether it applies here depends on what the service actually does, which is precisely the unresolved question.

The practical consequence for a reader: promoting this for 50% is not a neutral act, and the person most exposed is not you. A student who uses a tool that breaches their institution's rules risks their degree. You risk a commission. That asymmetry is the heart of it, and it is why a 50% rate should prompt more caution rather than less. The people most likely to be recruited by a student affiliate are other students on the same course.

To be precise about what this page does and does not claim: it does not say the service is unlawful, and it does not say every use of an AI study tool is cheating. Both would be assertions this page cannot support, and a great many AI study tools are entirely legitimate and genuinely useful.

What is worth saying plainly: before promoting this to anybody, establish (1) what the tool actually produces, (2) what the recipient's institution permits, and (3) whether your own institution has rules about promoting such services to other students — many do, and breaching them is itself a disciplinary matter.

And the commission terms, if you get past all of that: ask what "50% of all revenue" means in practice — first payment only or recurring, whether it is clawed back on refunds, what the payout threshold is, and whether the arrangement carries disclosure obligations where you post it. As with any affiliate scheme, an undisclosed paid endorsement is a regulatory issue in most jurisdictions and the obligation falls on the person posting.